Contents

Current Nominations (new stuff at top, prefix votes with * )

SELF-NOMINATION REGULATION: self-nominated articles (i.e. you write an article and then decide to nominate it yourself) must spend at least one week on pee review before nomination. Articles nominated by people other than the author can still be nominated at any time and require no review (though it is still recommended).

Very Strong For Hilarious in an evil and sadistic sort of way. --GeneralInsineratehymn 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Against UnNews stuff is NOT featured article content. Jedibob5 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

For Anybody who votes down something based on length is a LOSER. Just to preempt anybody who might. Also, this vote initially conflicted with the above vote, so also anybody who votes down something just because it is UnNews is a RETARD. --» Sir SavethemoosesGrandCommandingOfficer ... holla atcha boy» 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's also against the rules. So that vote doesn't count.. For --—Braydie 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Braydie's right, please read the final two bullets at the top of the page. —rc(t) 00:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Score: +13 private eyes who think this comedic reductio ad absurdum on the genre of crime-soaked, cheesy metaphor-drenched pulp fiction is easy on the eyes. Easy on the eyes like that bombshell blonde in the red dress who walked in like she owned the place. You could hear the silence as every head in the bar turned, just for a chance to watch her walk by and smell her perfume. She smelled like heartache and roses. Roses got thorns, see? And this gal had thorns in spades.

SN+F This is a nom, a self-nom, see? That's how we do it in the big, cruel city. We nom at night. Night is dark, and black like her heart. A dark night sky watched over by the sad, dark eye of the moon, staring. Staring down at a city crisscrossed with crummy streets full of dirty secrets that drain away into the filthy gutters of men's souls. Which also have secrets. A sad moon because it knows your dark secret. Secret like you not telling your girl that you cry yourself to sleep sometimes. How do I know that? 'Cause I'm a detective, see? A private dick, a gumshoe. No time for niceties; when there's a gun to my head, I roll the dice, put all my cards on the table and shoot from the hip until the fat lady sings. I know you like I know this city, and I know this city like the back of my hand. Sure, a map would work better. Maybe then I'd stop driving into the river. But that's not how we do it in the private eye game. We don't have time for maps. Too busy solving crime. (donations, expired medicine, letters of support and votes can be sent to Modusoperandi c.o. Bellevue Hospital for the Criminally Longwinded)SirModusoperandiBoinc! 15:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For Nearly every UnBook is good, and this is no exeption.--Imp88 12:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fore! Never before have I actually used the little attention span that I have to pay attention to something for so long. I actually read the entire th- A rotary phone!? Neat! --The Cyber Mage 02:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nominate, For One of the best, funniest and most panchromatic UnNews articles to rear it's ugly typeface in a while. A noob wrote it too, which scares the Hell out of me. Is UnCyclopedia a magnet for EVIL? Rev. Zim(Talk)Get saved! 20:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

FOR Incredibly wrong depraved you-don't-want-to-laugh-but-you-can't-physically-stop-yourself humour that just has to go on the front page. Though where the Iranian nutcase claiming it never got released? --Billsheppard 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Against. I understand that it's satirizing white supremacist video games, but I'm deepy uncomfortable with referring to Holocaust victims as game pieces, even as satire. I suspect featuring the article will cause more trouble than it's worth.--Procopius 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Against. It lacks that special something that makes an equally discomfort inducing satire like Jingo, well, brilliant.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Against. Good concept, but didn't make me laugh much and made me feel yucky when i did. Phal112 08:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For. It's mentionable as wonderful. ♥. How I love those tycoon games :] I'm a sick fuck. I like to make them have sex and eat the dog. -- ♥Lacey•clicky 09:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak for. It's hilarious at the beginning but starts losing its momentum at the Units section... --Zig 13:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For.....kudos to Brad for the original idea. -- Tits McGee 13:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. In my defense, it was part of a comment on how tasteless an article for VFH was, "This is the most tasteless idea since Holocaust Tycoon (video game)." It was Mhaille's dedication and hard work that brought this beauty to life.--<<>> 19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For cause Mhaille is one funny goy. --SirZombiebaron 13:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For, ^_^ 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

God help me, but this is definitely a for. --UtarEmpire 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak for, OMG, it's taken multiple sittings to read through it all. It's good, don't get me wrong, but it would be better as a series, rather than one ginormous page.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 07:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For, though I agree with Mod's assessment. Still, good stuff.--Procopius 00:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For I love jokes relating to rodents! --GeneralInsineratehymn 11:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For Yup, a very clever piece of proes. --SirZombiebaron 13:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For I actually was in a Bond movie once as an extra. I did the town drunk in "Diamonds are Forever". They cut my scene from the final release though. Can't remember why... -- di Mario 09:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

For because rodents are always funny, except that Mickey Mouse.--Ganall 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nominating and for. Let's prove that we are not just a bunch of jesters, but a bunch of damn smart jesters. herrdoktorneedsAcell[scream!] 19:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Four and second. I contributed a very small part, which I personally think is the most brilliant piece of controversy mankind has ever seen since the invention of Divorce by King Henry VIII. -- di Mario 19:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For.OMGWTFROTFLMAOZEDONG11!! Mr T is on a roll!! first Idiot's Guide and now this? (though this one's of a much better quality & also, it's clear that he's NEVER getting laid, ever, and he knows) -- mowgli 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Against' -- Oh, ye Gads!!! Anyway, it's too short for an article, too long for a dear john letter. At least to me. Feureau 04:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification ~ Actually, it's as long as several of its competitors combined: 15:04, 12 November 2006 ‎Dear John letter (hist) ‎[16,775 bytes] ‎Todd Lyons ~ but the content is random. It's meant to be re-loaded and re-read several dozen (97?) times. :) ~ SirToddGUNWotMMIUotMNotMMDAVFHAotMBur.AlBur.CMNSPC(talk) 05:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong for. This article screams at that heartless bitch to be on the front page.--Procopius 13:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For, but only because it occasionally mentions "restraining order". Ahhh, good times.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 07:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak For. I like random, but it can be sometimes too random. Still good though. --Anyone 18:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

FOR! Very good, but by the time you read this ill be looking at the next article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added byDrewcoll (talk • contribs) - dif

Weak For Okay, I love the idea.. but I dislike how this would work on the front page. But I'll leave it up to the admins to figure that out :] Though I am still a little meh about it. --♥Lacey•clicky 00:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)